Return-Path: Received: (qmail 86742 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 22:24:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by ptb-mailstore with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 22:24:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 9012 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 22:24:47 -0000 X-Filtered-by: Plusnet (hmail v1.01) X-Spam-detection-level: 11 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.20) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 22:24:41 -0000 X-Fake-Domain: majordom Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1AS1ru-0000fr-Hf for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:22:42 +0000 Received: from [212.23.8.70] (helo=heisenberg.zen.co.uk) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AS1ru-0000fi-0x for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:22:42 +0000 Received: from 82-68-18-174.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk ([82.68.18.174] helo=acer5gi5q0ubzj) by heisenberg.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AS1rt-0000k5-BB for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:22:41 +0000 From: "John W Gould" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:22:38 -0000 X-Bad-Message-ID: no DNS (langroup.wmg.warwick.ac.uk) Message-ID: <002c01c3bab5$1fd0cb50$0b01a8c0@langroup.wmg.warwick.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 In-reply-to: <1173800508.20031204194803@web.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Originating-Heisenberg-IP: [82.68.18.174] Subject: RE: LF: Spam etc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Rating: 2 If anyone is the moderator it's me folks - I started the whole thing some years ago, and yes I am monitoring the discussion! It's interesting to note that few apart from John and Dave have actually asked for the config to be changed and no one as far as I can see has answered John's call "is there anyone on the list for whom it would be a serious inconvenience to have a little less spam to intercept". Thus, I take the vote as yes please, through silent assent. I agree with John's assertion about spam filters - most of my spam comes in via my btinternet account (it's too prominent on websites so gets harvested) and I've cleared just under 2000 spams collected by the ISP over the last week or so (nice to be popular and well catalogues with life improving products and services). After the btinternet filter about 4 to 5 spams get through each day and are taken out by SpamNet (somewhat similar to Mailwasher) and then 1 or 2 a day I take out manually - incidentally I believe my Norton Virus checker took out the Paypal virus before SpamNet could get to it! I'll contact the reflector sysop over the weekend and again start discussing changing the config of majordomo. As most assert it's not much of an issue for him, it may just give me a bit of admin at the transition. I suspect that even the change won't keep the spammers at bay totally, but should usefully reduce the incidence of spam still further on the reflector. If during the changeover people get disconnected, check http://www.rsgb-hfc.org.uk/download.htm which, although wrongly named in the URL, is the 136kHz page on the RSGB HF Committee website. If there are new instructions for rejoining, etc., I'll post them there. 73 John, G3WKL > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of > Michael Oexner > Sent: 04 December 2003 18:48 > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: Re: LF: Spam etc > > > Hi all, > > > >> Try something like mailwasher. > > > All good and well, but as I said yesterday (a) it's not 100% > > effective, and (b) one utterly miniscule change to the list rules > > would virtually eliminate any spam coming through the reflector and > > thereby reduce the total volume of junkmail. > > > John > > Is the list moderator following this discussion? Who's in > charge of this mailing list (sorry for not knowing this)? Why > not send him a mail directly and ask him to change the > necessary Majordomo (?) settings?? > > > -- > Best regards, > Michael mailto:michael.oexner@web.de > > >